A 9th Circuit First Amendment case involving Evergreen School District, Principal Caroline Garrett, and HR Officer Jenae Gomes — directly relevant to characterizations made in the 2025 political campaign against district leadership.
Eric Dodge, a science teacher at Wy'east Middle School, brought a Make America Great Again hat to two days of teacher-only trainings in August 2019. Principal Caroline Garrett — after consulting with HR Officer Jenae Gomes — told Dodge to use "better judgment." The following day, after learning Dodge had brought the hat a second time, Garrett called him a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe, and told him that the next time the hat came up he would need his union representative present. Dodge understood this as a threat of disciplinary action.
Dodge filed a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) complaint against Garrett. Gomes, as Chief HR Officer, oversaw the investigation and contracted Clear Risk Solutions (CRS), a third-party investigator. CRS's preliminary report found that Dodge had been singled out for his political expression and that Garrett's union-representative statement was "reasonably perceived by Mr. Dodge as a threat of discipline." Gomes reviewed the preliminary report and asked CRS to remove the language about Dodge's "freedom of expression" and being singled out for political beliefs, characterizing it as outside the scope of the investigation. The final report found no policy violation. Gomes closed the complaint. Dodge appealed to the school board, which affirmed. Dodge then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation.
The district court granted summary judgment for all three defendants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed as to Gomes and the District, but reversed as to Principal Garrett, remanding for trial.
HR Officer Gomes prevailed entirely. The court found she took no adverse employment action against Dodge — the standard required for a First Amendment retaliation claim. The characterization circulating in 2025 that the court found Gomes liable for directing the deletion of investigation findings inverts the actual outcome.
Summary judgment reversed. The court found triable issues of fact on whether Garrett's union-representative warning constituted an adverse employment action. Garrett also admitted to allowing a BLM poster and a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker while singling out the MAGA hat — conduct the court identified as viewpoint discrimination. The Pickering balancing test clearly favored Dodge; qualified immunity denied.
Summary judgment affirmed. Dodge listed seven categories of Gomes's conduct as alleged adverse actions — including asking CRS to revise the preliminary report. The court found that none of them constituted an adverse employment action likely to deter protected speech. Gomes approved Dodge's transfer, ensured the investigation proceeded, and the final report found he had not violated policy.
Summary judgment affirmed. The board's finding that Garrett did not violate "policy or procedure" was not ratification of her conduct. The court noted that after the HIB process concluded, the board independently ordered further investigation into Garrett and ultimately gave her the choice of resignation or disciplinary proceedings — the opposite of ratification.
Dodge presented a seven-item list of Gomes's conduct as alleged adverse actions: (1) handling the investigation without recusing herself; (2) meeting with Garrett during the investigation; (3) asking CRS to remove language from the preliminary report; (4) presenting CRS's findings to the school board; (5) informing Dodge of a public records request and noting he could withdraw his complaint to avoid disclosure; (6) denying paid administrative leave pending appeal; and (7) handling other leave and benefits requests.
The court's analysis focused on the legal standard: whether each action was reasonably likely to deter Dodge from engaging in protected speech. It found that none of them met that standard. On the public records request specifically, the court noted that Gomes both told Dodge he could drop the complaint and that the investigation would continue either way — no implicit threat against him was established. On the report modification, the court acknowledged Dodge's concern but found no causal link to deterrence of speech.
"It is understandable why Dodge was concerned about HR Officer Gomes being involved in the investigation of his HIB complaint against Principal Garrett given HR Officer Gomes's involvement in the events leading up to his complaint."
This sentence — the only language in the opinion addressing Gomes's role in the underlying events — acknowledges Dodge's concern as understandable. It does not constitute a finding of wrongdoing, liability, or misconduct. The court made this observation in the course of explaining why Gomes's summary judgment should nonetheless be affirmed. The framing in some 2025 public statements that the court found Gomes "directed" deletion of findings, or that the case resulted in liability for Gomes, is not supported by this opinion.
Earlier versions of documentation associated with this investigation (including internal navigator drafts) contained language stating "the court found Gomes directed a third-party investigator to delete relevant information." That characterization is inaccurate as a description of the court's holding. The court found the opposite: Gomes prevailed on summary judgment because her conduct did not constitute adverse employment action. This page presents the case as the opinion actually reads.
| Question | Court's Answer |
|---|---|
| Was Dodge's MAGA hat protected speech? | Yes. A presidential campaign slogan is quintessentially a matter of public concern. Dodge was acting as a private citizen, not a public employee, when displaying it at teacher-only trainings. |
| Did Garrett take adverse employment action? | Triable issue of fact. Her union-representative warning — delivered by a supervisor to a subordinate about a political item — was at minimum enough to create a genuine dispute for a jury. |
| Was there actual disruption to school operations? | No. Fewer than five of approximately 60 attendees complained. Both trainings were completed without incident. Staff being offended does not constitute disruption sufficient to override First Amendment rights. |
| Did Garrett engage in viewpoint discrimination? | Yes, on the evidence. Garrett permitted a BLM poster and a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker while singling out the MAGA hat. She explicitly defended the distinction on political grounds. The court found this impermissible under longstanding precedent. |
| Did Gomes take adverse employment action against Dodge? | No. The record failed to establish this as a matter of law. Gomes approved Dodge's transfer, ensured the investigation proceeded, and her actions were consistent with established District policy. |
| Did the District ratify Garrett's conduct? | No. Concluding conduct was not a policy violation is not the same as approving it. The board's subsequent forcing of Garrett's resignation confirmed it was not ratifying her behavior. |